SCOTUS declines to hear challenge to warrantless pole camera surveillance

I like the modern strategy of doing to politicians what they let or perpetrate on others, but I think we'll have a hard time finding some cops to point a bunch of cameras at senators & Supreme Court justices.

The technical capabilities of state-based Survelliance keep rising. Just buying the data corporations keep on us seems like the absurd new main mode. Ring cameras, for example. Having the police themselves doing the spying, as here, seems almost old hat. But what absurd data they can get, given the high heights of technology we have flown to.

Because of course they won't, seems like too much hard work when they've got other civil liberties to overturn and steamroll.

> SCOTUS mostly hears cases where there is disagreement among the appeals courts, or where they feel the appeals courts are getting it wrong consistently.

I would say where there is a circuit split or an issue of particular importance to resolve (including, sometimes, a novel and significant challenge to existing Supreme Court precedent.) While there are a few cases that have probably been taken based on, or at least with, a prejudged outcome, I don’t think such is a norm such as to be listed as one of the major reasons the Court takes a case.

OP didn't specify why this was posted, but I was glad to find out about the issue discussed.

SCOTUS is also selective about taking cases beyond what you listed. It's one court for the whole of the US. Not taking a case is absolutely not a symbol of unimportance of an issue, or taking a side.

Their current purpose is mostly to clarify / set case law. Many cases just aren't a good fit for doing that. For example:

- The case might be messy, have auxiliary issues, or otherwise introduce unnecessary complexity

- They might not be ready to decide. For example, they might be waiting to hear more from lower courts, social consensus to come together, etc.

- They might not have time, or there might be more important issues

... and so on.

I don't think that was the implied conclusion. For a lot of us, it's still interesting to follow issues like this one.

Nasty ACLU using a dark pattern: the page comes up overlaid with a donation panel. The panel can be dismissed, but only by clicking a [X] button that is well outside the panel. You have to look for it.